alwayson wrote:There is NO such thing as nonduality in Buddhism, including Zen.

I guess you didn't see the earlier post which proves that non-duality is part of Buddhism.

Kyosan wrote:Non-dualism is part of Buddhism. For instance, here is a quote from an important Mahayana Buddhist scripture

from chapter 2 of the Sutra of Innummerable Meaningsall laws were originally, will be, and are in themselves void in nature and form; They are Neither great nor small, Neither appearing nor disappearing, Neither fixed or movable, and neither advancing nor retreating; they are non dualistic, just emptiness. All living beings, however, discriminate falsely: "It is this" or "it is that", and "It is advantageous" or "It is disadvantageous"; they entertain evil thoughts, make various evil karmas, and thus transmigrate within the six realms of existence; and they suffer all manner of miseries, and cannot escape from there during infinite kotis of kalpas.

zangskar wrote:An ambiguous question + binary answering option = bad survey. I mean no offense, but I do think you should be open to the possibility that the difficulty in communicating could just as well be at your own side as with a general population of Western zen practitioners.

The poll performed it's function quite well and the instructions are clear and unambiguous.

If you ask "Is X rational?" without any further specification then that could be interpreted to mean anything from-Given some goal (whicht was not specified) is X the rational way to reach that goal?-Is X intended/supposed to be rational?-Does X actually have some internal, logically consistent core? -Even if there might not (currently) exist an authoritative logically consistent corpus to X, could such a corpus exist without substantially changing X?and more

All these are valid interpretations of "is X rational?" when no further specifications are given.

If you wanted to know what people think you would have explained what exactly you mean by "rational", and then asked, "given constraints a,b,c with the goal z is x rational?"

Asking if Zen is rational, yes or no, with no further specifications, is not much more precise than asking if Obama is rational, yes or no. If you want to know what people's subconscious associations are driving them to vote next time then that poll would have some valuable information. But if you want to know what people actually THINK about it, then it's worthless.

ajax wrote:Not to suggest that there is no such thing as non-duality, no, of course not. The existence of non-duality is beyond questioning. I sometimes wonder though, maybe some have drunk the non-dual Kool-Aid a bit too deeply. For example, on a Zen Buddhist forum I created a poll which asked the simple question of whether Zen was rational or not. I gave explicit instructions that participants simply choose which yes or no answer felt more immediately right to them, and that they could go-off intellectually as they pleased in following comments. It was as thought they could not read the words I had posted.

Are some Zen practitioners in the West so attached to the ideas and culture of Zen that they cannot even entertain the notion of expressing how they feel in an nonintellectual or undogmatic way?

As you know reality has no and yes. It is beyond yes and no. We can only experience it, but cannot utter it by words, bcause reality is beyond words.

When you ask whether Zen is rational or not, even me I cannot answer.

What is Zen? Zen is simply a symbol which refer to the reality, which can only be experienced and cannot be utter by words.

So Zen is inexpressible.

How can you ask something which is inexpressible?

Zen is beyond yes and no. Beyond question.

I am not here nor there.I am not right nor wrong.I do not exist neither non-exist.I am not I nor non-I.I am not in samsara nor nirvana.To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

ajax wrote: I've just been thinking lately that some Zen institutions in the West may be placing so much emphasis on emptiness that they've lost sight of Buddhism, and that's what might account for the many scandals in Western Zen that we've been hearing about.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think what you are getting at is:

Do Buddhists who purposefully engage in scandalous (misconduct) behavior rely on the idea of nonduality (hence no ultimate right or wrong) in order to rationalize their actions?

can we rephrase your question this way?

If this is the question, then I think for the most part, no.I think the real culprit is samsara, which I liken to an insidious poison ivy vine that creeps into everything it can. Even great teachers are susceptible to its penetrating tendrils and no one is completely safe from it until they are a Buddha (or high bodhisattva).

I think that those who engage in misconduct generally put their precepts "on hold" and may deny or secretly acknowledge that they are really doing anything wrong, but I don't think they use nonduality as an excuse.

Ultimately, the desire for pleasure is at the root of dualistic clinging.

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

alwayson wrote:There is NO such thing as nonduality in Buddhism, including Zen.

[T]he real condition of existence appears in different forms, either pure or impure, but its real nature does not change. This is why it is said that it is nondual. "Nondual" is in fact a term that is used in dzogchen a great deal[.]Dzogchen: the Self-Perfected State, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Transcendental knowledge which is free from the dualism of being and non-being, belongs to the Bodhisattvas and takes its rise when they thoroughly examine things of imagelessness, see into the state of no-birth and no-annihilation, and realise egolessness at the stage of Tathagatahood.Lankavatara Sutra

[W]hen one abides in Mind-only, beyond which there is no external world, dualism ceases[.]Lankavatara Sutra

But [my teaching] is not that which falls into the dualism of being and non-being. Mine, Mahamati, goes beyond the dualism of being and non-being; has nothing to do with birth, abiding, and destruction; is neither existent nor non-existent. Lankavatara Sutra

You can't ape arrogance, son. You can only earn it. Then it'll be the real thing. Good luck with that.

alwayson wrote:There is NO such thing as nonduality in Buddhism, including Zen.

[T]he real condition of existence appears in different forms, either pure or impure, but its real nature does not change. This is why it is said that it is nondual. "Nondual" is in fact a term that is used in dzogchen a great deal[.]Dzogchen: the Self-Perfected State, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

You can't ape arrogance, son. You can only earn it. Then it'll be the real thing. Good luck with that.

Buddism indeed show us nonduality. You should read genkojoan.

I personally cannot find any difference between dzochgen and zen meditation (skikantaza, I forget how to write it)

Last edited by DarwidHalim on Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I am not here nor there.I am not right nor wrong.I do not exist neither non-exist.I am not I nor non-I.I am not in samsara nor nirvana.To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

alwayson wrote:There is NO such thing as nonduality in Buddhism, including Zen.

[T]he real condition of existence appears in different forms, either pure or impure, but its real nature does not change. This is why it is said that it is nondual. "Nondual" is in fact a term that is used in dzogchen a great deal[.]Dzogchen: the Self-Perfected State, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

You can't ape arrogance, son. You can only earn it. Then it'll be the real thing. Good luck with that.

The term non-dual (gnyis med, or advaya) is used frequently in Buddhist texts. The term non-duality (gnyis med nyid, advaita) is virtually never used, showing up only one time in the entire Kengyur, in a single passage in the Kalacakra tantra (hooray for a text searchable Tibetan canon!); and nineteen times in the Tengyur, the translations of Indian commentaries.

Namdrol wrote:The term non-dual (gnyis med, or advaya) is used frequently in Buddhist texts. The term non-duality (gnyis med nyid, advaita) is virtually never used, showing up only one time in the entire Kengyur, in a single passage in the Kalacakra tantra

What do you think is the distinction between non-dual and non-duality?

Sorry, but I don't buy that. Some Vajrayana practitioners are like that, but certainly not all of them. It's my impression that most of the Vajrayana practitioners on this board are respectful of other forms of Buddhism including Zen.

Buddhism is broader than you think and includes many paths. There are many ways to reach the other shore and there are many ways to describe the other shore.

Namdrol wrote:The term non-dual (gnyis med, or advaya) is used frequently in Buddhist texts. The term non-duality (gnyis med nyid, advaita) is virtually never used, showing up only one time in the entire Kengyur, in a single passage in the Kalacakra tantra

What do you think is the distinction between non-dual and non-duality?

The first refers to an absence of extremes. The second is advocating a philosophical position.

zangskar wrote:An ambiguous question + binary answering option = bad survey. I mean no offense, but I do think you should be open to the possibility that the difficulty in communicating could just as well be at your own side as with a general population of Western zen practitioners.

The poll performed it's function quite well and the instructions are clear and unambiguous.

If you ask "Is X rational?" without any further specification then that could be interpreted to mean anything from-Given some goal (whicht was not specified) is X the rational way to reach that goal?-Is X intended/supposed to be rational?-Does X actually have some internal, logically consistent core? -Even if there might not (currently) exist an authoritative logically consistent corpus to X, could such a corpus exist without substantially changing X?and more

All these are valid interpretations of "is X rational?" when no further specifications are given.

If you wanted to know what people think you would have explained what exactly you mean by "rational", and then asked, "given constraints a,b,c with the goal z is x rational?"

Asking if Zen is rational, yes or no, with no further specifications, is not much more precise than asking if Obama is rational, yes or no. If you want to know what people's subconscious associations are driving them to vote next time then that poll would have some valuable information. But if you want to know what people actually THINK about it, then it's worthless.

Lars

I think you are confusing the two polls. The poll being discussed in this topic did give the following "specifications"

Please go by your gut reaction and choose yes or no, depending on whichever feels immediately the most right to you. If you feel that neither choice is appropriate you can comment on that while still choosing one or the other.

ajax wrote: I've just been thinking lately that some Zen institutions in the West may be placing so much emphasis on emptiness that they've lost sight of Buddhism, and that's what might account for the many scandals in Western Zen that we've been hearing about.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think what you are getting at is:

Do Buddhists who purposefully engage in scandalous (misconduct) behavior rely on the idea of nonduality (hence no ultimate right or wrong) in order to rationalize their actions?

can we rephrase your question this way?

Well, no, I meant it more like I wrote above, that some Zen institutions in the West may be placing too much emphasis on emptiness and not enough on a more full expression of Buddhism. A lot of sitting and devaluation of discrimination and moral reasoning make Zen master a bad boy, essentially.